Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

How does one reconcile this case (see link below), with the verdict that came tonight? This is the case of a black, Florida resident. She fired a warning shot into the wall, after being threatened by her husband. She was sentenced to 20 (20!) years in prison. The Stand Your Ground law didn't help her. She didn't kill anyone. Her bullet didn't hit anyone.

For those who say race played no part in the Zimmerman case, how do they explain this? Is it merely that she probably had a public defender, while Zimmerman had a very good legal team? Would she have been found not guilty, if she had star legal representation? Of course, we don't know. It would be hard to find a case (except for O.J.), where an accused black person got a star legal team wanting to handle their case. The same is true for poor, white people. Well, unless you're attractive and get a lot of media attention. I suspect Casey Anthony would have been found guilty, if she had a public defender. Having said that, I still think white jurors would have had more trouble convicting her, then they would a black Casey. If this case had not gotten so much attention, which I am actually surprised a black shooting victim got all this attention, I suppose Zimmerman would have had to settle for a public defender. But, again, I think jurors would have wanted to side with him, even if subconsciously.

I have no doubt if Treyvon was white "Trevor Martin" (remember, it helps for a white person to also be attractive), we would have seen a guilty verdict. FOX News would have a totally different take. They would be the ones saying we need justice for little "Trevor." Zimmerman wouldn't have been following little "Trevor" in the first place. The evidence, that 100% of the police calls Zimmerman made were about black men, was not allowed to be entered in the trial. He was instructed to stay in his car and wait for police. He was not in danger. He is now a free man, while this woman has a 20 year sentence for firing a warning shot.

Moments before Trayvon punched Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and began repeatedly beating his skull into the concrete sidewalk, he was on the phone with his friend Rachel Jeantel (who testified at trial) making homophobic slurs and jokes about Zimmerman... calling him an ass cracker, a pervert, a gay rapist. He was not scared of Zimmerman.

When he confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman thought he said, "Do you have a f%$#ing problem, homie." Given the nature of the comments Rachel acknowledged Trayvon used, Zimmerman may have mistaken 'homo' for 'homie.'

The prosecution even subtly used the 'gay panic' defense in its closing arguments... stating that Zimmerman (aka the ass cracker gay rapist pervert) was every child's worst fear, and essentially argued that Trayvon had every right to beat him.

Interestingly, Zimmerman shares many characteristics with his brother Robert... who is an openly gay man.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was the victim of an assault.

Moments before Trayvon punched Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and began repeatedly beating his skull into the concrete sidewalk, he was on the phone with his friend Rachel Jeantel (who testified at trial) making homophobic slurs and jokes about Zimmerman... calling him an ass cracker, a pervert, a gay rapist. He was not scared of Zimmerman.

When he confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman thought he said, "Do you have a f%$#ing problem, homie." Given the nature of the comments Rachel acknowledged Trayvon used, Zimmerman may have mistaken 'homo' for 'homie.'

The prosecution even subtly used the 'gay panic' defense in its closing arguments... stating that Zimmerman (aka the ass cracker gay rapist pervert) was every child's worst fear, and essentially argued that Trayvon had every right to beat him.

Interestingly, Zimmerman shares many characteristics with his brother Robert... who is an openly gay man.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was the victim of an assault.

I had the luxury of listening to the testimony from day one. You conveniently added a little bit there, and that's fine. Rachal Jeantel said she told Trayvon "that he probably wants to rape you" and his reply was, "girl don't be playing with me like that".

The guy was watching him from his vehicle, and then followed him. I would also wonder why someone was following me. As an adult, if someone was following me, I would probably think they were going to rob me. As a kid, I might think something worse.

Trayvon was guilty of no crime when Zimmerman chose to follow him. Video time stamp from the 7-11 (convenience store) proved he was in route to his father's house.

Today, I have to admit, it's pretty apparent that Trayvon started beating Zimmerman down once they reached the middle courtyard. Truth to how exactly that transpired is only known by those two people. One witness said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and even he said he didn't know what started it.

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued. You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred. At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

When I look at this though I see a bigger problem. Why was Zimmerman following him in the first place? It's true the area had suffered recent burglaries, stolen property, etc... which had nothing to do with Trayvon. Why was he targeted as being a "suspicious male"? Is it safe to assume that Trayvon might have felt he was in danger? Where is his right to stand his ground and take actions to defend himself from a perceived threat?

Guess what, the guy with the gun wins.

After I learned more about this situation, I kept thinking to myself how just a little communication from one or both parties could have kept one from getting killed. But in my opinion, that's where the mistrust from both kept this from happening.

It's tragic when a 17 year old is killed when initially he was doing nothing wrong.

Zimmerman's wounds did not corrobarate that verison of the events. The wounds (to the back of his head and to his nose) only give evidence that there was a physical altercation. Witnesses only testified to punches thrown. The wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head were few, mild and required no treatment, bandages or stitches.

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I think if Obama does continues it proves he is racist. Why? He did not press charges on Casey.

Obama doesn't press charges, the DOJ does. The Casey Anthony case did not involve any racial overtones, so how does that even compare to the Zimmerman case? It is also not racist to charge someone, when it is believed they violated another persons civil rights. What IS racist, is accusing Obama of being racist, simply for doing his job.

I have found it very interesting how most come down on this case, depending on our political persuasions. MSNBC hosts were almost crying, but also discussing the case in an intelligent way. I turned over to FOX and they were so happy. They were ecstatic. They had Geraldo live from Sanford. Lord, he is a joke. He was skirting on sounding racist, imho. He said how Trayvon's parents were so articulate. Would he have said that about a white family? He asked the black people standing behind their live shot, whether they would get violent over this verdict. He referred to Trayvon as a thug, while not qualifying whether that's how some viewed him. It sounded like he was saying that about Trayvon.

We had a family pool party at my partner's parents' house today. Except for the younger family members (18-22), everyone else is a republican. Well, his mother voted for Obama. I hoped they wouldn't discuss the case, because discussing politics often turns bad. So, this would be the same. Well, everyone kept their cool, but they were all happy about the verdict. They all admit that they rarely watch or read news. I have noticed that with repub friends. The ones I know aren't intellectually curious, and just get info from FOX. For any repub members here, I am talking about people I know. The race issue really eats at them. None of them even knew much about the case, but automatically sided with Zimmerman. You can't avoid the fact that all the republicans saw this as a just verdict, while we liberals had issues with it.

I am not saying everyone, who thought the verdict was right, is a racist. There were problems with the case. I think they probably overcharged the case. The people I know, who were happy with the case, have made comments that verged on racist, in the past. And, many of them circulated a bogus story about Trayvon. I have included that link below. They posted how the media was showing pics of Trayvon as a 12 year-old. They posted this bogus story, showing Trayvon with a very muscular physique and looking "thuggish." As soon as I saw it, I immediately knew it was bull. The man in the photo was obviously much older. What would be the motivation of this bogus story and photo? I have to believe it was out of racism. The media photos showed a cute, young, black boy. They needed to depict him scarier. And, would it make it more acceptable to kill the rapper in the photo? Trayvon was too cute, so you need a black man, who looked like he deserved it? I can't figure out any other motivation.

I just don't think they would have been so willing to believe the story about a white kid. As I've said, I think if Trayvon was white, the people I know would be on the opposite side. They would be questioning whether Zimmerman was here legally. If this was their kid, they would want justice. They would not care about the complexities of the case. So for them, I do think racism was at play. I think it is perfectly acceptable to debate the case. Thinking the verdict was right does not make one racist. But, for those who are obviously viewing this from a racist prism, I just can't take them seriously that race has zero to do with their views. They wouldn't have been so willing to believe the photo was real and wouldn't have been circulating it.

Here is the story about the bogus story and photo. There is a link to view the pic.

While I am sure that racism is a huge part of the reaction to this verdict, I'm not convinced it was part of the verdict. I think 2 things went "wrong":

1. The prosecution was, basically, inept. They overcharged when you consider Florida's self-defense laws and they did a horrible job during the trial (at least the little bits I read about in the press).

2. From what I read, the judge instructed the jury that they needed to consider whether Zimmerman's life was in danger OR IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS. If those instructions were, in fact, given to the jury, it would have been difficult to find him guilty.

While I do think that Zimmerman deserved some punishment for getting out of his car and following Trayvon, despite being told not to do so, apparently, Florida's law made convicting him of murder or manslaughter a bridge to far.

The whole mess is a fine example of how where you live in the U.S. determines so many things.........

I admit this topic is something I feel pretty passionate about. I use to argue with my own family about these issues and it was never a win situation. It's a view held as deeply as a person's religious beliefs, and it won't be swayed.

I'm not saying this is the case on the forums, but I acknowledge from my past experiences that my own feelings on this matter may be clouded as well. I should stay out of this discussion.

I remember seeing this, when it originally aired. They've had other scenarios, where a black man or woman was treated differently. I remember one was about retail stores. They hired black actors, dressed in business attire, to shop in stores. The black shoppers were followed, and even accused of being up to something. And, these were black shoppers dressed in business attire. Whenever you discuss this, many always say how whites are profiled, too. And, that is true. I've been followed in stores by security. But, always when I was dressed down. Black people are profiled much, much more. You just can't compare the two.

I was watching the interview with the juror, who has come forward (in shadow). She referred to Zimmerman as George, but referred to Trayvon as "that boy." It could be the jury just could not find him guilty, based on the evidence and instructions. The juror said the jury was initially split, with some wanting to convict on 2nd degree and some on manslaughter. She said it was listening to the 911 call that changed things. The jury of 5 whites and one Hispanic was questionable. I still can't figure out why the prosecution went along with that. I think it was the initial investigation that needs scrutiny. He just killed a teen, and they weren't going to arrest him. They didn't talk to witnesses for a few months.

The bottom line is Zimmerman had no authority to ask what Trayvon was doing. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman. It was not his business to confront someone walking through a neighborhood. Trayvon was definitely profiled. The gay comments are ridiculous. Kids are taught about "stranger danger" from a young age. They are taught to be concerned about strange men following them. I would be worried about a stranger following me-- mostly to rob me, especially at night.

I had the luxury of listening to the testimony from day one. You conveniently added a little bit there, and that's fine. Rachal Jeantel said she told Trayvon "that he probably wants to rape you" and his reply was, "girl don't be playing with me like that".

The guy was watching him from his vehicle, and then followed him. I would also wonder why someone was following me. As an adult, if someone was following me, I would probably think they were going to rob me. As a kid, I might think something worse.

Trayvon was guilty of no crime when Zimmerman chose to follow him. Video time stamp from the 7-11 (convenience store) proved he was in route to his father's house.

Today, I have to admit, it's pretty apparent that Trayvon started beating Zimmerman down once they reached the middle courtyard. Truth to how exactly that transpired is only known by those two people. One witness said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and even he said he didn't know what started it.

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued. You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred. At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

When I look at this though I see a bigger problem. Why was Zimmerman following him in the first place? It's true the area had suffered recent burglaries, stolen property, etc... which had nothing to do with Trayvon. Why was he targeted as being a "suspicious male"? Is it safe to assume that Trayvon might have felt he was in danger? Where is his right to stand his ground and take actions to defend himself from a perceived threat?

Guess what, the guy with the gun wins.

After I learned more about this situation, I kept thinking to myself how just a little communication from one or both parties could have kept one from getting killed. But in my opinion, that's where the mistrust from both kept this from happening.

It's tragic when a 17 year old is killed when initially he was doing nothing wrong.

Great analysis. Why do we let loser dudes carry guns and "play" cop, and reward them for it!!! The mind boggles.

What a pathetic emasculated dumbass this Zimmerman, bullying a teenager when asked not to, on false libido emanating from a cold gun in his pocket. What immoral stupid racist schmuck. I hope his life is RUINED...

And bad kharma on all Americans who don't understand how this was an individual's racial profiling and bad and probably racist law conspiring to bring a black teenager down.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued. You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred. At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

a bloody nose? a couple scratches on the back of his head? no blood on the "assailant's" hands? no medical attention required? Not much of an "upper hand" and surely, one would think, not reaching the heights of needing deadly force as Zimmerman was no where near being killed or receiving great bodily harm.

This "stand your ground" law (which the defense did NOT invoke; although the judge did erroneously use the phrase in the jury instructions about basic self defense claim) definitely needs some correcting

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

I think it makes sense under Florida law and the way Zimmerman was charged, that he was acquitted. I also think, IMO, that Zimmerman racially profiled the young man, teenager, and foolishly got involved when he was explicitly told to back off. Zimmerman didn't follow with the intent to kill. Martin didn't know what was happening to him or why, but clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, NOT A COP, following him. Zimmerman could have waited in his car, with his gun, and felt no threat whatsoever.

Instead, it was a perfect storm of a very bad decision by Zimmerman and a very bad law, that if I read this thread correctly, didn't even need to be cited in Zimmerman's defense (!!!), to still cast it's immoral vigilante shadow over the injustice that has just been delivered to Martin and his family.

Obama, the POTUS, says there's a racist element to this whole hideous perfect storm of sadness. I agree.

It's hardly vulgar or aggressive to members in this forum for me to wish bad karma on Americans who can't see how race played a role in this event and very unsatisfying judicial result.

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree? Please.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 10:32:40 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I think it makes sense under Florida law and the way Zimmerman was charged, that he was acquitted. I also think, IMO, that Zimmerman racially profiled the young man, teenager, and foolishly got involved when he was explicitly told to back off. Zimmerman didn't follow with the intent to kill. Martin didn't know what was happening to him or why, but clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, NOT A COP, following him. Zimmerman could have waited in his car, with his gun, and felt no threat whatsoever.

Instead, it was a perfect storm of a very bad decision by Zimmerman and a very bad law, that if I read this thread correctly, didn't even need to be cited in Zimmerman's defense (!!!), to still cast it's immoral vigilante shadow over the injustice that has just been delivered to Martin and his family.

Obama, the POTUS, says there's a racist element to this whole hideous perfect storm of sadness. I agree.

It's hardly vulgar or aggressive to members in this forum for me to wish bad karma on Americans who can't see how race played a role in this event and very unsatisfying judicial result.

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree? Please.

One person's viewpoint of someone wishing another bad karma is up for debate but I do agree with the rest of your post entirely.

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree? Please.

Really?? so we, "as non-blacks" can agree on something being racist, but we can't disagree?? Sounds a bit racist, doesn't it? Oh wait, am I allowed to have that opinion??

For the record -- I DO agree that racism was in the Zimmerman / Martin altercation from the get-go, but I simply hate when someone says that one can't have a different opinion on something, like racism, because of --- wait for it --- your RACE.

As soon as public opinion took up the affair as having a racial element, it had one. Whether or not your and my opinion (which we share) is correct about the motivations of those two people involved.

And i did not wish bad karma on "white" Americans, I wished it on Americans.

Then i said I'm not comfortable with white Americans denying the race factor. Its delusional, considering American history. Counter productive and not forward looking. Bad karma is a cheap bastardized sentiment which I used to express the wish of cause and effect, that what goes around, comes around, and eventually there could be an effect that wakes people out of what I consider a delusional view of American culture.

Two different pronouncements.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Then i said I'm not comfortable with white Americans denying the race factor. Its delusional, considering American history.

You really think that all blacks or "non-whites" are in agreement? I know that they are not.While I am of the opinion that race DID matter here -- in the altercation and in the trial, you continue to spread racism by USING RACE as a separator of what one should or should not think. It is an asinine and counter-productive bit of "logic".

almost every mention of the situation from day one was " young black man shot by overeager white guy" instead of " young man shot by neighborhood patrol volunteer" presumption of race issue was inserted from the first report... but the court proceedings/Jury didnt see it that way and found him innocent...not a just verdict???/ maybe..... but if you prefer trial by newspaper/TV coverage/and upset other persons...be careful what you wish for

almost every mention of the situation from day one was " young black man shot by overeager white guy" instead of " young man shot by neighborhood patrol volunteer" presumption of race issue was inserted from the first report... but the court proceedings/Jury didnt see it that way and found him innocent...not a just verdict???/ maybe..... but if you prefer trial by newspaper/TV coverage/and upset other persons...be careful what you wish for

Nick

Not to be a stickler but the US justice system does not find anyone "innocent." We find people either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not equal innocent. It's a rather important part of the justice system.

Not to be a stickler but the US justice system does not find anyone "innocent." We find people either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not equal innocent. It's a rather important part of the justice system.

Ummmm, that is because you are PRESUMED innocent, until found guilty. Not sure how you think your "point" means anything at all. If you are found not guilty, then, in the court's eyes, you were and are innocent.

If you are found not guilty, then, in the court's eyes, you were and are innocent.

not really. a civil court found OJ guilty of murder even though the criminal court did not.(I think we may see a similar outcome when/if the Martin family sues G Zimmerman in civil court.)

"Not Guilty" is a judicial term meaning "not proven" - as in the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Innocent, which is not a verdict used in a criminal case, however means a person did absolutely nothing. Not guilty may mean that you aren't guilty of the specific crime you are being charged with, but you may not be innocent.

a simple google of "not guilty vs. innocent" will get you all sorts of legal gobbledygook explaining the difference and how "not guilty" is the judicial term and that it does not mean "innocent"

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

not really. a civil court found OJ guilty of murder even though the criminal court did not.(I think we may see a similar outcome when/if the Martin family sues G Zimmerman in civil court.)

"Not Guilty" is a judicial term meaning "not proven" - as in the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Innocent, which is not a verdict used in a criminal case, however means a person did absolutely nothing. Not guilty may mean that you aren't guilty of the specific crime you are being charged with, but you may not be innocent.

a simple google of "not guilty vs. innocent" will get you all sorts of legal gobbledygook explaining the difference and how "not guilty" is the judicial term and that it does not mean "innocent"

A. We are not talking about a SUBSEQUENT civil trial.

B. Courts do not find people innocent. You are presumed innocent until found guilty. So.... simple logic dictates that if you are not found guilty, you RETAIN your presumption of innocence. A court's job is to find guilt -- not to find innocence. At least not in this country. The media and the public may have "found" him guilty, but that don't matter. The jury did not find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. You can parse the terms anyway you want -- and you end up in the same place. Zimmerman is a free man, legally anyway. (and Trayvon Martin is still dead).

How many murders occur in America each year and how many begin with a physical beating? Unfortunately neither Zimmerman or Martin knew what the other was thinking. Each had to act according to personal perception of the situation. Zimmerman should not of followed Martin and Martin should not of attacked Zimmerman but, both did. There was nothing racial about this situation and only stupid mistakes were made by both people. Sadly one is dead and the other will live in constant fear of the next attack. I am happy Zimmerman was found not guilty.

How many murders occur in America each year and how many begin with a physical beating? Unfortunately neither Zimmerman or Martin knew what the other was thinking. Each had to act according to personal perception of the situation. Zimmerman should not of followed Martin and Martin should not of attacked Zimmerman but, both did. There was nothing racial about this situation and only stupid mistakes were made by both people. Sadly one is dead and the other will live in constant fear of the next attack. I am happy Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Zimmerman will live in fear of the next attack? We don't know what exactly happened. We don't know whether he grabbed Trayvon or got in his way, so he couldn't keep walking where he was walking. We do know Zimmerman stalked him, even when told not to do that. By saying it that way (and maybe you phrased it wrong), it makes Trayvon the stalker and criminal, imho. It makes it sound like he was the original aggressor.

This reminds me of Zimmerman's brother's thinking. He said George will now have to worry about people taking the law into their own hands. It is so odd that he doesn't think that's what his brother did that night. I don't understand that thinking that you can pursue someone, having zero authority to do so, and when you get into a fight with that person, you can kill them.

The next attack on Zimmerman will be from someone wanting to take the law into their own hands. Zimmerman will have to be vigilant and aware of his surroundings for some time because, he now has a target on his back. This is unfortunate for him but, we should all constantly be aware of what is going on around us anyway. Criminals are opportunistic and will pounce on an unsuspecting person in a heart beat.

I don't know for sure but, I don't think following someone is a crime. If I am correct then the only crime committed was when Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman never made contact with Martin but, Martin did attack Zimmerman. This was a tragic outcome for sure and could of been avoided but, the end results sends a clear message to violent people and criminals.

I was a juror on a murder trial in Brooklyn. The murder happened at a drug deal gone wrong and there were at least 6 thugs there. There were many guns at the scene, several shots fired.

If I remember correctly, the only person we heard from the scene of the crime was the accused. Other witnesses weren't exactly there or weren't there at all.

The way the judge charged us, we acquitted the accused because it hadn't been proven he was the one who fired the shot that killed the victim. I remember when we were discussing the case it took awhile for one or two jurors to get over the fact that such a bad guy was going free. Because it was clear from the trial that he was a gangster up to no good in life, several alias, known drug dealer, accused of murder previously, was at the scene of the crime, maybe fired shots, and so on and so on.

It didn't take all that long to deliberate, after all, but we did need to have that conversation. That people can make bad choices or actions, or be what someone considers a good for nothing, or dangerous, or a gangster or whatever, generally, but finally he/she is being tried for something specific. Thats the way it works and its a pretty good justice system.

I'm sure a lot of the controversy in this case is that people (myself included) can't reconcile general impressions - and much of that based on speculation - with a very specific accusation and trial and judge instruction....

When I was on that jury I had already been mugged 2 times at gunpoint, and after the acquittal which seemed straightforward to me intellectually, I did have dissonance, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I think a lot of people can't tolerate any dissonance and thats why politics, public opinion, etc, can so easily collapse into shrill binary shouting matches...

One time when I was at school in a college town, I got beat up by a group of black teenagers, while walking at dusk on the main drag for the college students with the restaurants and coffee houses, etc. They came up from behind and it was over pretty quickly. Punched me, kicked me, and bashed my face in with huge plastic water rifles, while they were laughing. Never saw them before, and they said nothing to me, and got in a car and drove away. I went to the hospital and was treated over night, then was home in bed for quite awhile. My face looked like a meatball grinder!

When I could move I was disappointed with the lack of police followup so went to the police station to see what was happening. I had the car's plate no. after all.

I had already been discouraged because the cop who took me to the hospital was a campus police officer (but a real police officer with a gun) but then I had to go to the city police to pursue it. The campus police officer was black and driving me to the hospital, he was asking questions pretty casually and he said "Oh, I think I know one of those kids from a youth center where I volunteer. I'm going to have a talk with him." I was like "A talk with him???" but was too out of it really.

Anyway, days later, at the downtown police center, the case had gone nowhere, and nobody gave a shit, basically...

Well about a month later a professor invited us all down to NY to her brooklyn art studio. It was in a sketchy neighborhood and I know all my NY neighborhoods, but I had been out of Brooklyn for a few years. Well as soon as I got out of the subway i was surprised to discover that my back was up, and that I was extremely nervous whenever a few black teenagers were walking behind me. Unfortunately, I had turned into a race profiler. I soon moved back to NY and this continued for about a year or two until finally, thank God, it faded away... Previous to the crime, I had never been scared in any neighborhood or of any "type" of person.

I say all this because as regards Zimmerman and whether or not he is "racist", we know that he is ethnically mixed himself, white european and peruvian and the peruvian has been reported to be mixed Indian and African... And that he spoke out against a white cop having committed brutality on a black victim... So rather than seeing things in binaries, the psychology can be more complex. I don't think he was "a racist" in life but his myspace page was racist about mexicans and his calls about his neighborhood watch activities were tinged with profiling against young blacks...

We don't need to make him into a living breathing KKK card carrying racist in general, to say that in some situations he could have been doing "racial" profiling. I know how that might happen....

« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 04:50:03 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

B. Courts do not find people innocent. You are presumed innocent until found guilty. So.... simple logic dictates that if you are not found guilty, you RETAIN your presumption of innocence. A court's job is to find guilt -- not to find innocence. At least not in this country. The media and the public may have "found" him guilty, but that don't matter. The jury did not find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. You can parse the terms anyway you want -- and you end up in the same place. Zimmerman is a free man, legally anyway. (and Trayvon Martin is still dead).

I see things a bit different on point "A".Bugs initial comment did not exclude the bigger picture of a subsequent trial. Maybe your interpretation was different than mine.I agree with points B and C.The bottom line here is that one can be found not guilty in the eyes of the law for many reasons. It does NOT mean the person is innocent in reality.In this case, lack of proof of the charges against Zimmerman set him free. Lack of proof doesn't make him an innocent human being.

I pretty much agree with Bocker, and think Zimmerman is innocent of murder. I think we are debating the whole affair generally, between those two, Zimmerman and Martin, and society generally as well. Then it gets really contentious.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I pretty much agree with Bocker, and think Zimmerman is innocent of murder. I think we are debating the whole affair generally, between those two, Zimmerman and Martin, and society generally as well. Then it gets really contentious.

I pretty much agree with both of you too. My post was about the part of this thread dealing with innocent vs. not guilty. There is a difference.

I pretty much agree with both of you too. My post was about the part of this thread dealing with innocent vs. not guilty. There is a difference.

I think I get that you are pointing out that there is a "legalese" difference -- certainly a "not guilty" verdict does not, in actuality, state that the person didn't do it -- it simply points out that the evidence did not lead to a guilty finding, beyond a reasonable doubt (for a criminal trial).

However, from a practical standpoint -- there is no difference. They can not be retried in a criminal court for that charge (double jeopardy) and if they are brought up on subsequent charges (like a Federal civil rights charge), they start that trial with a presumption of innocence (not a presumption of "not guilty).

Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence. Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom. So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

So - one can split hairs between the meaning of innocent vs. not guilty from a legal standpoint, but from a practical POV, there is no difference. If you are "innocent until proven guilty", and you are not proven guilty, logic dictates you still retain your "innocent" standing.

I think I get that you are pointing out that there is a "legalese" difference -- certainly a "not guilty" verdict does not, in actuality, state that the person didn't do it -- it simply points out that the evidence did not lead to a guilty finding, beyond a reasonable doubt (for a criminal trial).

However, from a practical standpoint -- there is no difference. They can not be retried in a criminal court for that charge (double jeopardy) and if they are brought up on subsequent charges (like a Federal civil rights charge), they start that trial with a presumption of innocence (not a presumption of "not guilty).

Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence. Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom. So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

So - one can split hairs between the meaning of innocent vs. not guilty from a legal standpoint, but from a practical POV, there is no difference. If you are "innocent until proven guilty", and you are not proven guilty, logic dictates you still retain your "innocent" standing.

Mike

I get where you are coming from and agree with your last post. I'm just going further than the legal system on the definition of innocence.Even if he sails through any further trials and comes out without punishment or damages, in my eyes he is not guilty through the eyes of the law but is not innocent.Example:Let's say a guy really did commit 1st degree murder and got away with it in the legal system for one reason or another. Does that make him innocent? I think not. Therefor, one CAN be found "not guilty" AND "not innocent" at the same time. I believe this relates back to what Bugs said. The legal system uses the specific words "not guilty" instead of "innocent" when a verdict is read for a reason.

I get where you are coming from and agree with your last post. I'm just going further than the legal system on the definition of innocence.Even if he sails through any further trials and comes out without punishment or damages, in my eyes he is not guilty through the eyes of the law but is not innocent.Example:Let's say a guy really did commit 1st degree murder and got away with it in the legal system for one reason or another. Does that make him innocent? I think not. Therefor, one CAN be found "not guilty" AND "not innocent" at the same time. I believe this relates back to what Bugs said. The legal system uses the specific words "not guilty" instead of "innocent" when a verdict is read for a reason.

I agree. Although we are talking about legality here, so what is the practical difference here, from a legal POV? Whether "innocent" or "not guilty" -- he has no legal penalty to pay.

If our system were reversed and the burden of proof was on the defendant (i.e. prove your innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt) - would one still be pointing out that a verdict of "not innocent" does not equal "guilty"? Either wording produces the same result -- you go to jail.

The only time I see folks bring up the "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" line is when they disagree with a verdict. If you want to get real picky -- a "guilty" verdict doesn't mean one is NOT innocent - we read about people being released from prison because they, in fact, were NOT guilty.

So -- bottomline (and I'm not doing this to change anyone's mind -- just to ensure clarity of my point) -- there is no practical difference in this legal hair-splitting. Hell, there really isn't any real "legal" difference when you get right down to it.